D&D 5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[GMforPowergamers]

you play however you like but

As to why NPCs have these skills if they are not meant to influence and/or compel the decisions of PCs, first I would point to the odd man out, Deception. Unlike the other two social skills, Deception can apply in two slightly different situations. The first, the typical social interaction check, is one in which a character is attempting to influence another creature in order to gain the creature's compliance with some request or demand. If that attempt is based on a falsehood, then skill in Deception would apply. A PC cannot be influenced by such a check because the premise of roleplaying is that the player assumes the role of his or her character. A PC's actions cannot determined by such a check because they depend solely on the decisions of the player. Persuasion and Intimidation are likewise unable to influence the player's decisions with respect to his or her PC. The best way to resolve such a situation is for the DM, as the NPC, to lie to the player, and for the player to decide on the PC's response. No check, and therefore no skill, need be involved.

On the other hand, if the player suspects a falsehood, and seeks to verify the truthfulness of the NPC's statement through observations of the NPC's body language, etc, and the DM asks for a Wisdom (Insight) check from the PC, then this can be contested by the NPC's Charisma (Deception) check. The outcome of this check, however, does not determine whether the PC is compelled to any sort of action if the lie is found to be believable, but only whether falseness is in fact detected.

Looking at the DM's Basic Rules, the four monsters/NPCs skilled in Deception are the Doppelganger, Medusa, Green Dragon, and Cultist. All of them are figures who are likely to lie to the PCs. Their skill in Deception will not come up however unless they attempt to deceive other NPCs, or if a PC attempts to uncover their falsehood.

Intimidation and Persuasion are both very similar to one another in that they both represent an attempt to influence through force of personality without resorting to falsehood. Intimidation is backed up with threats, and Persuasion is supported by good manners, or compelling arguments. There is no action that parallels the discovery of falsehood in the case of an interaction that relies on these skills, so if an NPC is attempting to persuade or intimidate a PC, no check is required. The outcome depends solely on the player's decision.

Orcs and Thugs make a Charisma (Intimidation) check to keep their own allies, or lesser creatures, in line, given that social skills are more effective when used on friendly creatures. Likewise, a Priest will use his skill in Persuasion, not to boost a Charisma check the outcome of which will determine the PCs actions, but rather to influence the actions of of another NPC. If the PCs take action to elicit the opposite outcome, as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has pointed out, these become contested checks.

all of this is your way of reading it... [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and you can both do that... in my games I don't care if you feel 'cheated' that the orc has a +9 intimidate... you can no more claim "I'm not intimidated" then you can claim "I can see through stealth"

 

[Hriston]

you play however you like but

all of this is your way of reading it... [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and you can both do that... in my games I don't care if you feel 'cheated' that the orc has a +9 intimidate... you can no more claim "I'm not intimidated" then you can claim "I can see through stealth"

What goal is the Orc trying to accomplish with his/her Charisma (Intimidation) check? What is s/he trying to get me to do?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What goal is the Orc trying to accomplish with his/her Charisma (Intimidation) check? What is s/he trying to get me to do?

Off hand I would say not fight him

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is a very interesting question: obviously people feel quite strongly about "the DM telling players how their characters think." - but what does that mean really?

It's obvious (to me, anyway) that there are situations where the DM CAN dictate what the characters think. They think the wizard is casting fireball. They think the yellow mold can be destroyed with ice. They think the shopkeeper might be lying.

Similarly, he can tell them they feel cold, they feel an aura of malevolent evil, they feel hurt.

He can tell them what they do - you throw yourself out of the way of a fireball, you trip and fall down the stairs, you swing but miss.

Personally, I believe that the line is when the DM tells a character what choices he makes. A DM should be able to tell you that your character feels afraid, but he can't then tell you that because of that you run away. He can tell you that you feel brave and empowered and ready to punch a deity in the face: but you don't have to jump onto the back of a raging tarrasque because of that. He can tell you that you think there are no traps in the hallway, but you don't have to stroll confidently down the middle of it.

The social skills are pretty interesting too: no matter how I try to rationalize the three, I always end up with no room for one of them. If I intimidate someone, am I not also deceiving them? and persuading them? If I deceive someone into a course of action, then am I not also either persuading them or making them fearful of something? If I persuade someone, then unless I'm their friend and really do have their best interests at heart, I'm also either intimidating or deceiving them. Really, it's pretty much at the point where there should be a single "interaction" skill and leave it up to the player/NPC's characterization to decide the tack that is taken. Oh, and probably relegate the "grr I'm really strong, run away" version of intimidation to DM fiat just so we can stop having barbarians drenched in the gore of their foes from 6 seconds ago fail their intimidation check because the dice say so.

 

[Hriston]

Off hand I would say not fight him

I tell the Orc, "If you do not fight us, we will not fight you."

 

[Imaculata]

This sounds like the same debacle as we had in third edition. Insight is not a lie-detector. Neither is Sense Motive in third edition. Players and DM's have consistently been misunderstanding how these skills should be used.

Player: "Did you just cheat during that game of cards?"
Npc: "No, I played completely fair." (A lie. No skill check needed)
Player: "I want to know if he's lying. I roll insight!" (16, success!)
DM: (Rolls deception for the npc. 14 failure!)
DM: "He seems a bit nervous at the mere suggestion that he was cheating, but you have no idea if he's lying."

Of course you don't. Insight does not detect lies. Here's a better scenario to show the correct use of Insight.

Player: I play another game of cards with him, but I keep a close eye on any tells that he's cheating.
DM: Halfway into the game, his eyes wander from the game.
Player: Can I check what he's looking at?
DM: Roll for insight.
Player: (16, success!)
DM: (Rolls deception for the other npc. 14, Failure!)
DM: His eyes seem to glance at another person in the audience, who is conveniently standing in a position where he has a clear view of your cards.
Player: Now I know for sure he is cheating!

And depending on how successful the player is, you could give out additional information. Maybe the player also notices how the npc in the audience is holding out a couple of his fingers to give signals to the cheating card player. But that is all up to the DM.

Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether
you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such
as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's
next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body
language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

So, you can figure out the true intentions of a creature, which may give clues whether someone is being truthful, or lying. But it's not an automatic lie detector. Similarly, an intimidate does not automatically scare players or npc's away, and diplomacy does not immediately stop hostile creatures from attacking. Its poorly phrased in the 5th edition PHB, but it hasn't really changed from 3rd edition.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I tell the Orc, "If you do not fight us, we will not fight you."

maybe it's just the fact that I'm sick today...but I don't understand you...

 

[Imaculata]

This is a very interesting question: obviously people feel quite strongly about "the DM telling players how their characters think." - but what does that mean really?

It's obvious (to me, anyway) that there are situations where the DM CAN dictate what the characters think. They think the wizard is casting fireball. They think the yellow mold can be destroyed with ice. They think the shopkeeper might be lying.

I'm always careful in my phrasing. I don't explicitly tell them that the shopkeeper is lying, but I may tell them that the shopkeeper seems nervous, and that his hands tremble. For example, I had a situation in a Call of Cthulhu game, where the player was booking a room in a hotel, but the receptionist was staring at him while he was walking up the stairs. He suspected something was up, and thus rolled for his sense motive (or insight, if you will), and he was successful. So I told him that he suspected that the receptionist was waiting for him to be out of view, so she could inform others that he was asking questions. He decided to listen at the top of the stairs, and he heard the receptionist making a phone call.

As a DM I give the players clues, tell them what they suspect, or if they have a hunch, but I don't tell them exactly what they think or what their conclusions are. If an npc is lying, then a successful insight might reveal some tells, but whether the npc is actually lying is still up for debate.

Similarly, with an intimidate I may tell the players that they feel threatened by an npc. They may even feel like the npc could easily beat them in a fight, even if this isn't the case. But I can't tell them to run away.

Personally, I believe that the line is when the DM tells a character what choices he makes. A DM should be able to tell you that your character feels afraid, but he can't then tell you that because of that you run away. He can tell you that you feel brave and empowered and ready to punch a deity in the face: but you don't have to jump onto the back of a raging tarrasque because of that. He can tell you that you think there are no traps in the hallway, but you don't have to stroll confidently down the middle of it.

I once had an npc sailor in a bar successfully intimidate a player (who was playing a dwarf). I told the player that the man towered over him, and was very muscular. He was clearly looking to pick a fight, and he looked like if it came to that, he would probably win. The player then decided to simply leave the bar, and ignore the sailor who was clearly trying to provoke him into a fight. Now that is a successful intimidate. Statistically, the player could have easily defeated the sailor, but he role played it really well.

The social skills are pretty interesting too: no matter how I try to rationalize the three, I always end up with no room for one of them. If I intimidate someone, am I not also deceiving them? and persuading them? If I deceive someone into a course of action, then am I not also either persuading them or making them fearful of something? If I persuade someone, then unless I'm their friend and really do have their best interests at heart, I'm also either intimidating or deceiving them. Really, it's pretty much at the point where there should be a single "interaction" skill and leave it up to the player/NPC's characterization to decide the tack that is taken. Oh, and probably relegate the "grr I'm really strong, run away" version of intimidation to DM fiat just so we can stop having barbarians drenched in the gore of their foes from 6 seconds ago fail their intimidation check because the dice say so.

Yep, this often comes up. Sometimes an intimidate can also be a bluff or a deception. Sometimes I leave it up to the players which skill they want to use. And yes, it is a bit silly that a barbarian covered in gore would fail his intimidate check, just because he has a low charisma and/or intimidate score. Social skills in D&D still don't have a very good system. It was inconsistent and confusing in 3rd edition and it still is in 5th edition.

You could house rule it, and allow the barbarian to use his strength modifier to roll for his intimidate instead, and add a situational bonus, since he is already covered in gore. In fact, I believe a DM once did this when I was playing a Barbarian in his campaign.

 

[iserith]

I think this is where we are talking about shades of that same red line. Many people view the result of the skill check as the background that 'may weigh on a player's decision as to how he or she will have his or her character act, but it's still in the hands of the player to decide.'

I think there's an important difference being overlooked here.

A player that knows sanction by a deity is possible for acts against the will of the god he or she is meant to represent may avoid taking such acts. The DM is not telling the player what to do here or how to act or even how the character feels. There is simply a consequence - the DM narrating the results of the adventurer's action as per the basic conversation of the game.

Compare this with a DM who describes the environment as, for example, an orc intimidating the character, then telling or expecting the player to play his or her character accordingly.

These situations are not nearly the same in my view.

 

[iserith]

This is a very interesting question: obviously people feel quite strongly about "the DM telling players how their characters think." - but what does that mean really?

It's obvious (to me, anyway) that there are situations where the DM CAN dictate what the characters think. They think the wizard is casting fireball. They think the yellow mold can be destroyed with ice. They think the shopkeeper might be lying.

Similarly, he can tell them they feel cold, they feel an aura of malevolent evil, they feel hurt.

He can tell them what they do - you throw yourself out of the way of a fireball, you trip and fall down the stairs, you swing but miss.

This seems to be just wordplay in my view in an attempt to obfuscate what I feel is an important distinction about what the DM should be describing and narrating in his or her particular role. The characters see the wizard casting a ball of fire. The character recalls that yellow mold can be destroyed by ice. The shopkeeper is lying, based on his nervous mannerisms. The DM isn't telling the player how his or her character acts or thinks. These are the DM describing the environment followed by two examples of the DM narrating the results of the adventurer's actions.

Personally, I believe that the line is when the DM tells a character what choices he makes. A DM should be able to tell you that your character feels afraid, but he can't then tell you that because of that you run away. He can tell you that you feel brave and empowered and ready to punch a deity in the face: but you don't have to jump onto the back of a raging tarrasque because of that. He can tell you that you think there are no traps in the hallway, but you don't have to stroll confidently down the middle of it.

I do not believe the DM should tell a player how his or her character feels because that goes to how the character thinks and acts. I strive to stick to simply describing the environment, determining uncertainty, and narrating the results of the adventurers' actions. Where the character is concerned, the player determines how it acts, what it thinks, and what it does.